asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will issue a White Paper on the Scottish economy.

I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) on 10th April.—[Vol. 872, c. 418–19.]

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that since he was last in office there has been a major industrial revolution in Scotland? The national statistics of unemployment and employment conceal the serious problems which exist in the non-oil sector, particularly in the west of Scotland. This imbalance in the Scottish economy, the slowing up of new industry inquiries, the slump in the market and fears of the excesses of the Secretary of State for Industry are causing extreme anxiety in Scotland.

I am aware of the problems in Scotland. Having been in this House during the three and a half years of Conservative Government I could not fail to be aware of them. Not once in those years did the Conservatives produce a White Paper on the subject.

A very important element in the Scottish economy is the question of land ownership and the cost of land. Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the decision of the Scottish Office, made during the life of this Parliament, not to proceed with a land register giving ownership of land in Scotland? If we do not have the register, how can we take the land into public ownership?

Information on this matter is already available. It is much more important to get action by way of legislation than to have a register.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on 28th February in Scotland unemployment was falling, job vacancies were at the highest level ever and migration was at the lowest point since the war'? Can the right hon. Gentleman explain the relevance of the Secretary of State for Industry's plans, which are causing half the firms in the country to cut back their investment programmes? Can this be in the interests of Scotland?

Stagnation in investment began a long time before that date. Employment could not but be falling at the time the hon. Gentleman referred to, in view of the high level it reached because of the industrial dispute and the three-day working to which the country was driven by Tory policies.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from the Scottish beef and pig producing industries concerning the effects of Her Majesty's Government's policies and if he will make a statement.

I have received representations from the National Farmers' Union of Scotland and others. The Government have started discussions with the unions about longer-term support measures. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be making a statement today about decisions which were taken on beef and pigs at the recent Council of Ministers' meeting.

Does the Secretary of State appreciate that only last week there were further falls in the market in the price of beef, making the situation even more difficult than for the last three months?

Market prices until recently have been fairly firm, but there has since been some seasonal reduction. We have already taken action and we gave the pledge that we would take further action if that was necessary. The hon. Member should await the statement by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture later.

Will the Secretary of State accept that the Minister of Agriculture's statement in Luxembourg yesterday did absolutely nothing to restore confidence to the agriculture industry? Will he say whether the variable premium has been fixed for beef in this country, and how quickly it will be introduced, because at present all farmers are gravely concerned at the lack of speed shown by the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State, who seem to equate with a tortoise?

I have seen the Scottish Farmers' Union and the Ayrshire farmers. Their concern was more related to the failures of the previous Government who did nothing while things got worse.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the completely unsatisfactory nature of the reply I give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on another occasion.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what are his plans for transferring the houses controlled by the Scottish Special Housing Association and new town corporations in Scotland to the new district authorities.

My right hon. Friend has no plans to transfer Scottish Special Housing Association houses to district authorities. The Government's policy for new towns, including their relationship with local authorties, is under consideration.

Is my hon. Friend the Minister of State aware that it is Labour Party policy to transfer Scottish Special Housing Association and new town corporation houses to the local authorities in the area? Will he give an assurance that when the Bill to repeal the Housing (Financial Provisions) Scotland Act is published it will contain a proposal to transfer these houses to the new district authorities and not just to eliminate rent anomalies which now exist between various houses?

There are wider considerations than differences of rent levels between new towns and local authorities to be taken into account. The position in Scotland as a whole is that the differences are not all that substantial, except perhaps in the case of Irvine, which is the new town that most concerns my hon. Friend. The whole policy in relation to the new towns is under consideration.

Dees the Minister accept what his hon. Friend said in relation to the commitment to transfer the houses?

The commitment is as I have expressed it this afternoon; we are considering the policy and are having discussions at present.

Does not my hon. Friend accept that there is good, sound, common sense in using the SSHA as a building agency only, and transferring the houses to the control of the new district authority? Will he give a commitment that in our forthcoming legislation on rents the provision in the previous Tory legislation to preserve a differential between new town houses, SSHA houses and local authority house rents will be abolished?

My hon. Friend knows our commitment to the abolition of the previous legislation affecting local authority houses and the restoration of freedom to local authorities to determine their own rents. As for SSHA houses, I think that there is an element of management as well as rent-collecting involved in the present arrangements, and I am not sure that rent-collection and management could satisfactorily be split up between the SSHA on the one hand and local authorities on the other. As for transferring the houses, my hon. Friend should have in mind that the building of SSHA houses is a considerable advantage to local authorities and ratepayers, because the deficits on those houses are borne by the Government and not by the local authority.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will pay an official visit to Ross and Cromarty.

While I have no present plans for a visit, I look forward to one at the earliest suitable opportunity. Both my noble and hon. Friends, the Ministers of State, are planning visits within the next few weeks.

Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that when his noble and hon. Friends visit Ross and Cromarty they will include in their itinerary a visit to the aluminium smelter at Invergordon and a visit to Nigg Bay, where Brown and Root-Wimpey Limited is operating in such a successful way? Will he also use his powerful Scottish voice in the Cabinet to ensure that those who are employed there need have no fear that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry will be let loose with a scythe to cut the prosperity they are now enjoying by nationalising those industries?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that he raises fears that need not exist.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the problems of Ross and Cromarty cannot be separated from those of the area stretching from Orkney and Shetland down round the coast to Morayshire? On the question of oil, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the major problem in the area now is the shortage of housing? When will he be in a position to say what plans the Government have for improving the housing stock, in view of the immense difficulties that local authorities are having? Perhaps he can add a comment on the amazing statement from a Scottish Office source which appeared to indicate that the Scottish Office projected a smaller number of houses than other people had projected were needed for the population?

I do not know anything about that unsubstantiated statement. I do not know who made it. In the area to which the Question refers, in the Easter Ross and Invergordon area, and the hon. Gentleman's area, we have under construction or are proceeding with plans for about 6,200 houses, and there are further to come. We are determined to meet the needs of the area and to deal with the urgent problems arising there.

Will my right hon. Friend use the same powerful voice to which the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) referred to persuade certain incoming American companies to be just a little more sensible about the recognition of trade unions?

That point has already been made to them.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make the position quite clear? In answering my hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray), was he pledging to the House and Scotland that in the Cabinet he will prevent the Secretary of State for Industry from bringing forward plans to nationalise Brown and Root and other oil-related industries? Will he stop his right hon. Friend, or not?

The plans of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry, which were debated fully before and during the General Election—and in respect of which we received a considerable vote of confidence in Scotland—will have my general support.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about staffing in the National Health Service.

While there are difficulties affecting particular groups of staff, in general staffing in the National Health Service in Scotland is reasonably satisfactory.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we are very glad that the review is now under way, but that we are concerned by his statement, a day or two ago, that it might not be completed until the autumn? Would it not have been much better, and saved a great deal of needless trouble, if the Government had made use of the relativities machinery, which existed and which could have sorted out this difficult problem a long time ago?

There is no reason to suppose that the relativities procedure would have led to a quicker report. As for details of the review body and what might come out of it, there is a later Question on the Order Paper, and when we come to it we can no doubt review these exchanges.

In view of the slackening in recruitment of those workers who come under special grades—those in charge of support facilities within the hospital system—will the hon. Gentleman give consideration over the next few months to ascertaining the position of those special grades, whose valuable rôle in the hospital service seems to have been ignored in recent years?

Many grades of staff in the National Health Service were ignored by the previous Government. We shall certainly do all we can to improve the position.

Does the Under-Secretary accept that two areas have been causing some concern over recent years? The first is that of physiotherapists. How near is the new school at Dundee nearing readiness to accept recruits? Secondly, when will the hon. Gentleman implement further steps under the Melville Report?

I do not have the information about the Dundee school, but I shall write to the hon. Gentleman. On Friday we shall take the remaining stages of the Bill of the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) relating to the Melville Report. We shall make a statement on the other aspects of the report in due course.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make arrangements for the Under-Secretary in his Department responsible for education to make an official visit to Falkirk.

I have no plans for this at present, but I am always will ing to make a visit to a particular area where circumstances so warrant.

Is my hon. Friend aware that I shall bear in mind that commitment, especially when the allocations of resources are made in respect of school building? Is he aware that we have in the Camelon area of Falkirk a serious problem in relation to the Falkirk High School and the Camelon High School? When making an allocation of resources, will my hon. Friend take into account this serious problem, about which I have been in correspondence with him?

I fully appreciate the desire of Stirlingshire Education Authority and the parents of Falkirk to eliminate a school that provides only four-year courses. When we come to the allocations for 1975–76, I shall bear in mind the points which my hon. Friend has raised.

If the hon. Gentleman is generously prepared to go to places where circumstances warrant a visit by him, will he be good enough to go to Perth and tell the insurance industry, the whisky industry and the other big employers in Perth which of them are to be nationalised and which are not?

I regret that that matter does not fall within my ministerial responsibility.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a White Paper on the economic prospects for Strathclyde over the next five years.

I shall consider whether a White Paper would be appropriate when I have received the report and recommendations of the West Central Scotland Plan Steering Committee.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us feel that that might be helpful, bearing in mind the disastrous experience that Scotland had as a result of the nationalisation of the steel industry? Is he surprised that people in Scotland regard with horror the statements that are being wildly uttered by the Secretary of State for Industry, and will he reconsider the complacent replies which he has made today? Even my hon. Friends and I are astonished at how out of touch he has become during his short time in office.

There spoke the Chairman of the Conservative Party of Scotland. He has our condolences for the onerous task that he is undertaking. If he is to revive his party's hopes in Scotland, he had better improve his speeches. With regard to the production of a White Paper, we have the help of the steering committee and the report which it has commissioned from Professor Buchanan and Professor Alexander. Arising from that report, I hope that we shall be able to put forward recommendations that will be helpful in future.

The hon. Gentleman's point about the steel industry shows how much he is out of touch with the steel industry in Scotland.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) has some cheek in now being worried about the economic affairs of Strathclyde? Does he realise that for three and a half years when he was in office he did nothing about Strathclyde's economic affairs? I hope that my right hon. Friend will not listen to calls for White Papers. The day for White Papers has passed, and we want decisions. When will my right hon. Friend give us a decision about Hunterston?

I hope shortly to be able to announce a comprehensive decision on Hunterston. When we consider what was done by the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) I do not think that we should put all the blame on him. After all, he had one or two colleagues.

Will not the right hon. Gentleman at least admit that despite some of the admitted failings of the last Government, we left the economy of Scotland in a satisfactory position? Unemployment was down, job vacancies were up and there was a rosy future. Will the right hon. Gentleman at least admit that and get away from his complacency? Does he realise that there is a genuine fear of substantial unemployment in Scotland because of the total uncertainty that is created by the Government's industrial policy? Will he state where he stands on that matter and will he give an assurance to industry that it will not be grabbed by the mad, extremist policy of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry?

The hon. Gentleman has a strange memory. For nearly two and a half years of the previous Government's three and a half years in office unemployment in Scotland never fell below 100,000.

But we got it right.

The hon. Gentleman says that the previous Government got it right, but today the unemployment figure is 20,000 fewer than it was a year ago. The Opposition should stop raising false scarces and hopes and should instead try to put forward some constructive policies and ideas relating to Scotland

asked the Secetary of State for Scotland if he will order an immediate inquiry into Scottish rural transport problems.

I do not think this is called for at present. Two pilot studies into the problems of rural transport published by the Department of the Environment in 1971 were circulated to Scottish local authorities. Many of the suggestions they make are relevant to the situation in rural Scotland.

Will my hon. Friend reconsider his decision on an inquiry? Is he aware that despite the Transport Act, 1968, transport services in certain towns and villages in the rural parts of Scotland have now reached a point of crisis and breakdown? Does he agree that this would be a suitable matter for investigation by the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, for which we have waited in vain since the election?

The Select Committee is not a matter for me. I accept that there are considerable difficulties about rural transport in many areas. The 1968 Act places a good deal of responsibility for determining the needs of an area and giving financial assistance on local authorities and it provides the right kind of framework for tackling such problems. The Act has been used extensively by local authorities in Scotland.

Is there anything that the Minister can do to alleviate the problems of the ferry services to the islands on the West coast? The Minister and I have been in long correspondence on the matter. Charges have risen by an average of 47 per cent. between Largs and Millport and it now costs nearly 2p a pound for food to be taken over to the island of Arran. These are severe costs for rural areas.

I do not think that the recent increases have averaged anything like 47 per cent. The hon. Gentleman knows that I am committed to meeting very soon all the local authorities concerned. It is a question of finding a date which is suitable to them so that we can discuss these problems.

Does my hon. Friend understand that his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) was very disappointing? Does he realise that an inquiry is urgently needed into the rural transport services in Scotland? Hon Members are inundated with inquiries about the breakdown of transport in rural areas. Will my hon. Friend consider his plans for the new town of Stonehouse, and consider, in particular, advising British Rail to reopen the railway line between Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse?

With respect, my hon. Friend's question about Stonehouse goes rather wide. If he has particular problems regarding that area, I shall be happy to hear from him about them and to consider what I can do to help.

I return to the Minister's reply regarding ferry services. Does he accept that the local authorities are now insisting on a meeting with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland? Does he appreciate that the situation has reached a critical stage? The authorities are determined to have the matter discussed at the highest possible level in Scotland. Will the Minister impress upon his right hon. Friend that the authorities must have a meeting with him? If he does not do so we shall assume that he has no interest in the problem.

The hon. Gentleman's last point was an absurd one to make. The hon. Gentleman knows some of the history about the arrangements for a meeting. He should be the last person to make that kind of comment. As I have already said, I am committed to a meeting with the local authorities. The meeting could have taken place weeks ago if they had been willing to see me on the date that I suggested.

Is the Minister aware that in many of the rural areas of Scotland, and especially the remoter areas, the majority of people depend upon the use of their private cars for transport? The use of their cars represents a large part of their budget. Will the hon. Gentleman explain the relevance of the increase in the petrol tax that was announced by his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, coming as it does on top of heavy increases for fuel in general? Does he agree that the Chancellor's increase makes no sense to the people living in the remoter areas of Scotland?

The whole question of taxation of petrol has been exhaustively discussed during the Finance Bill debates. One of the problems about rural bus transport is that an increasing number of people use private cars. That is one of the difficulties about operating viable rural bus services. The arguments are by no means all one way.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the rise in the cost of living in rural areas in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

I have received no representations relating to rural areas as such.

Will the right hon. Gentleman reject the complacent approach taken up by his hon. Friend the Minister of State regarding the effect of the increased taxation of fuel? Will he accept that it is not just a matter of rich people driving cars? They seem to be the Government's main target. Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that people need to use cars to get to work and to go shopping, and that the policy of imposing VAT on petrol—which he can not blame on the previous administration—has had a disastrous effect in rural areas? Will he accept his responsibility towards all the people of Scotland and not just towards those whom he thinks support him?

I do not think that that last comment was worthy of the hon. Gentleman. It is not justified by the many actions which we have taken. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that a subsidy of 50 per cent. is paid by the Government on rural bus services. That subsidy amounts to approximately £1 million a year and arises from Labour legislation. The hon. Gentleman should know—I realise that he was not a member of the previous Parliament—that the economic situation was so appalling that something had to be done about it.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the size of the buses that are used for rural services? It seems that bus operators continue to use enormous buses which half the time are half full. Possibly something could be done through capital grants to get the right size of bus on to the rural roads. That might help rural transport.

I shall pass on that suggestion to those concerned.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will issue a statement regarding his plans for the future supply and distribution of electricity in Scotland.

The detailed planning of electricity supply in Scotland is primarily a matter for the Scottish electricity boards, whose intentions are set out in a statement, "Plans for the Future 1971–78", published in January 1972, and in their annual reports.

What consultations did the hon. Gentleman have with the South of Scotland Electricity Board before the price of night storage heating was increased by 50 per cent.? How does the hon. Gentleman justify his approval of this gigantic confidence trick? What action will he take to try to improve the situation and also to improve what is clearly the ugly face of nationalised industry?

The hon. Gentleman's final comment was rather laboured, and in any case did not arise out of the Question. These tariffs are not subject to the approval of the Secretary of State. The tariff increases in Scotland are still a good deal smaller than would have been required to eliminate the deficits which accumulated under the Conservative Government. The question of night tariffs was considered by the two consultative councils and agreed by them, and the unit price increases for off-peak heating are exactly the same as those for heating during the day, so the differential between the two forms of heating has been maintained. In any case, the increases are not nearly as great as they have been south of the border. But I remind hon. Gentlemen that all these matters will be discussed in the House tomorrow and in the Scottish Grand Committee, and I shall be delighted to give even more detailed answers then.

In the light of the coal industry's interim report yesterday, will my hon. Friend ensure that the future of the Scottish coal industry will be taken into account when he is considering Scotland's future electricity supplies? Will he consider consultation with the Department of Energy on the matter?

In all these matters we are in consultation with the Department of Energy. The electricity boards in Scotland are already burning all the suitable coal available from the Scottish coalfields, which, like other coalfields in the United Kingdom, will benefit greatly from the plans just announced by the Government.

Will the hon. Gentleman stop giving these silly and complacent replies? Is he aware that many thousands of people in Scotland believe, rightly, that they are the victims of a confidence trick, having been persuaded by advertising in the past to invest large sums of money in the installation of off-peak heating systems, only now to find that the Labour Government condone a 50 per cent. increase in what was supposed to be a cheap tariff?

I do not accept any of what the hon. Gentleman has said. I have already replied to these points, but again I remind him that the subject will be debated in the House tomorrow and in the Scottish Grand Committee. I repeat that I do not accept any of the charges he has made.

In considering the plans for the supply and distribution of electricity in Scotland, will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the imbalance in supply distribution between the South of Scotland Electricity Board and the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, as well as the fact that the benefits of hydro-electric power do not seem to be passed on to consumers in the hydroelectric board's area? Will he ensure that consumers in that area get a better deal in future?

The assumptions on which that supplementary question was based are not accurate. Indeed, even with the increases that have just been announced there will be substantial deficits in both the North of Scotland and the South of Scotland areas. These deficits are made up by the Government and therefore, ultimately, by the taxpayers. I wish that hon. Members opposite who are constantly complaining about increasing public expenditure would take into account that even after these increases substantial sums are still having to be provided by the taxpayers to make up for the deficits.

Does my hon. Friend not agree that it is sheer humbug for Conservative Members to criticise the electricity boards in Scotland? Does he not also agree that these boards were highly efficient until the introduction of the Counter-Inflation Act, and that Tory Members like the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) forecast then that these efficient industries would become inefficient because of the actions of the Tory Government?

If one keeps prices artificially down, one cannot then complain if the nationalised industry boards make substantial deficits. That is what happened under the Conservative Government. We were left with a situation in which substantial increases would have had to be imposed if we were to get these boards back into balance. Certain increases have been imposed, but a large bill will still have to be picked up by the taxpayers.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the position with regard to his discussions on the future of Hampden Park.

The working part to which my right hon. Friend referred in his reply on 6th May to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) is continuing its study of this problem.—[Vol. 873, c. 13–14.]

Does not the magnificent game played by Scotland last night in the World Cup wholly justify the Minister's making a statement now, without detail, that he is in principle in favour of providing help in order to ensure that Scotland has a modernised international stadium, with, in fairness to the local residents, better facilities for the crowds? Would not this be the best form of encouragement to our team on Saturday?

I certainly agree that the performance of the Scottish team last night was magnificent. It is a pity that we did not get the result we deserved. The hon. Gentleman knows how difficult it has been to get those concerned with Hampden Park to agree to what might be done. If it is to remain Scotland's premier stadium, something will have to be done, but we cannot give a detailed reply on finance until we know what is involved.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will initiate an inquiry into the pay and conditions of nursing and other staff working within the health service.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement made in the House on 23rd May by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.—[Vol. 874, c. 686–97.]

Does my hon. Friend recognise that the whole House appreciates the very sympathetic approach of the present Government to this matter, compared with the clobbering which the nurses got from successive Tory Governments? Will he give an assurance that this is one of the services that will not be denationalised? Will he also try to knock some sense into our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services to get her to provide an interim settlement pending the Halsbury proposals? If she will not do it, will my hon. Friend not attempt to do in Scotland what she says cannot be done in the rest of the United Kingdom?

I affirm that there is absolutely no question of the National Health Service's being denationalised. It is the core of the Labour Party's philosophy and of the health care of our people. It has done and will continue to do a magnificent job. I agree that those working in it, particularly the nurses, have suffered each time there has been a statutory incomes policy, wage freeze and the rest, going back to earlier days.

I am satisfied that we shall do all we can to improve conditions. I believe that the decision to establish the independent review body to report early, and our promise to backdate payments to 23rd May, are a guarantee of good faith to the nurses. I hope that they will accept that we are doing all we can to improve their conditions and will let us get on with the job.

When the Halsbury Committee does report, will the hon. Gentleman ensure that the benefits that we hope will accrue to the nurses will be extended to include the paramedical services, which are particularly suffering? I am sure that the hon. Gentleman accepts that many paramedical workers in responsible professional positions are getting no more than shorthand typists are getting fresh out of school.

The hon. Gentleman should be aware that such an undertaking was given on the day that the setting up of a review body was announced. Therefore, no assurance is needed from me, except to say that I reaffirm it and agree with it.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he now hopes to complete his consideration of the Hunter Committee's Report on fishing rights.

I cannot add to my reply of 20th March.—[Vol. 870, c. 1006.]

Is not the reality in this complex area that it is difficult for a minority Government to do what is necessary for a sport which is at least as important to us as football?

I do not think it raises quite the tempers that football does at times. This is a complex subject. Conservative Members will appreciate that they did not get to the point of producing a Bill in their time of government—

Very nearly.

I have not seen that Bill, and nor has the country. I could not give any pledge that there will be any legislation on this in the present Session.

Does the right hon. Gentleman, with his excellent memory, recall that in 1964 when I was asked this question I said that urgent consideration was being given to it, and that in 1965, Mr. Willis, of blessed memory, when asked a similar question, said that very, very urgent consideration was being given to it? Is this not a classic example showing why we need an Assembly to deal with matters of this kind?

The right hon. Gentleman had better ask his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) who is sitting on his left, and his colleagues in front of him, and see whether they agree with his last remark. He was a member of the last administration. It was so urgent then that nothing was done.

asked the Secretary of State for. Scotland if he will require the Scottish Development Department to conduct a survey of the loss of employment in Scotland resulting from the cancellation of arms export contracts and the resulting loss of prospective arms export orders, and to publish the results.

No, Sir. I am not aware that there is likely to be any loss of employment in Scotland arising from the cancellation of arms export orders or contracts.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that is a grossly inadequate answer? Cannot he grasp that whenever one of his right hon. Friends calls for the cancellation of orders from one country, owing to the selective morality of the Government, export orders for defence equipment to many other parts are automatically hazarded? Is it true, as the Ministry of Defence has said, that 100,000 jobs in Scotland are dependent on the defence industry? What is the right hon. Gentleman doing to exercise what little influence he may have in the Cabinet to protect jobs?

The hon. Gentleman asked me a Question about loss of employment and I have told him that there will be no loss of employment. That is true. He had better accept it—and keep his shirt on.

Order. In spite of the fact that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Selby) is waving his Order Paper at me I shall call him for a supplementary question.

Is the Minister aware that there is some danger that the possible take-over of Barclay Curie's yard by Yarrow's could lead to unemployment at Govan Shipbuilders, which currently has a full order book? Does he appreciate that the developments of which I speak could lead to a diminution in Govan Shipbuilders' orders?

I note what my hon. Friend says.

Surely it is not a question of the jobs that have been lost but the prospective loss of jobs. In view of the great amount of public money in the shipbuilding industry, will the right hon. Gentleman apply his mind to that point?

I do not intend to make a survey of a hypothetical loss of hypothetical jobs as a result of cancelling hypothetical orders.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the totally unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is satisfied that the long-term interests of the Scottish inshore fishing industry will be promoted and safeguarded by the policies of the United Kingdom Govern ment to be suggested at the Law of the Sea Conference; and if he will make a statement.

Yes, Sir. The Government are conscious of the longer-term needs of the Scottish inshore fishing industry and account has been and will continue to be taken of these in the formulation of our policies.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that because of the changed attitude in the fishing industry in this country towards pushing limits out, possibly to 200 miles, there is a real danger to the inshore fishing industry, due to the extra pressure upon fishing grounds from other vessels in the areas in which the inshore fleet now fishes?

I am aware of this. The hon. Gentleman should appreciate that even the inshore fishermen are concerned about getting certain extensions of controlled waters. It follows from that that this whole question of access will have to be dealt with very carefully as a result of anything that comes out of the Law of the Sea Conference.

Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the Scottish Office is represented at the conference, so that matters concerning limits may be taken into account and so that, in particular, restrictions on industrial fishing are asked for, particularly in respect of foreign vessels off north Scotland and Shetland?

The right hon. Gentleman can accept from me that a representative of the Scottish Office will attend this conference. This is not a ministerial-level conference but an official-level conference. The representative from the Scottish Office is Mr. Aglen, who is probably the foremost expert in this subject, from an international as well as a Scottish point of view. He has been so recognised for a long time. We hope also to take a technical adviser from the industry.

We had hoped that Mr. Campbell, from Lossiemouth, a gentleman with great experience in the industry, would go, but that has not proved convenient. We still hope that there will be an expert from the industry.

Is it not a fact that while we and the fishing industry accept that Mr. Aglen is the foremost expert on this subject, he is getting on in years—

So are you.

Will there not be a great deal of lobbying of foreign delegations to be carried out on the various questions that will be raised at this conference? Mr. Aglen is the best there is from an expertise point of view, but could he not be supported by a representative, or representatives—since this is so important for Scotland—to deal with these other functions? Does the Secretary of State intend to leave Mr. Aglen to do it all by himself.

The hon. Lady does not do justice to herself. [Interruption.] She did not have very much good sense to say when she was on her feet and I do not think she improves when she sits down.

Cheap jibes!

I am satisfied that the advice we shall be getting and the notice that will be taken of that advice will be used in pressing Scotland's needs and looking after our interests at this conference.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I have been attacked by the Secretary of State, may I cast his mind back—

Order. I am afraid that the hon. Lady cannot do that on a point of order. She must seek some other opportunity.

May I say, on behalf of the Opposition, that we in no way associate ourselves with the denigration of a notable Scot with an international reputation? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we have complete confidence in Mr. Aglen's ability to represent Scotland at this important conference? May I also ask the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the importance of this conference to Scotland, what steps are being taken to inform the House of the policy which the Government propose to follow at the conference?

The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that there is a certain measure of confidentiality about tactical negotiations. This conference lasts from 20th June until about 29th August—a period of 10 weeks. We have to appreciate that many people are dealing with this complex subject. We want to get international agreement. Negotiations will involve certain tactical moves, compromises, and the rest. It is not wise to declare precisely what one's position is at the beginning.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if any consultations have taken place between his Department and Edinburgh Corporation about the possible development of the Playhouse Cinema as an opera house.

This possibility was discussed by a corporation working party on which my right hon. Friend's Department and the Scottish Arts Council are represented. The corporation decided, however, not to acquire the Playhouse.

As the opinion of experienced people is that the size of the stage, the quality of the acoustics and the number of dressing rooms are far superior to most other premises of its kind, has the hon. Gentleman, as the guardian of public money, considered the possibility of developing this theatre?

The Question asks whether Edinburgh Corporation will proceed with this development. It has decided not to buy the Playhouse. We have had a report by theatre consultants on whether it might be used as a live theatre. Copies of that report have gone to Edinburgh Corporation. We must await developments.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, while a strong body of opinion believes that room must be found for the Playhouse, the vast majority of people in Edinburgh do not believe that it would be suitable as an opera house? They think that there is a need for the Government to repeat the Conservative Government's pledge of generous assistance in the provision of a multi-purpose theatre on the Castle Terrace site.

The question of a multipurpose site and the Opera House, which is intended to be finished by 1981, depends on the matter of progress, design and other factors. We must await developments.

In considering these matters, will my hon. Friend bear in mind that compared with any other city or place in Scotland Edinburgh receives exceptionally favourable treatment? If he has extra money to spend, will he consider spending it in some of the towns, notably Motherwell? We shall be very critical if there is much more special treatment for Edinburgh.

In considering the allocation of public resources we take into account the competing demands and the worth of each project. The article by a newspaperman in a certain newspaper was grossly discourteous to the City of Edinburgh, which has done much for the arts.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will announce the new salary scales for teachers and the increase for designated posts in primary and secondary schools; and if he will make a statement.

The new scales and allowances to be paid as from 1st April were announced by the Scottish Teachers Salaries Committee on 29th May. I am sending details to the hon. Member.

The Committee has under consideration the form of an extended designation scheme to operate from 1st August. The total sum for distribution is approximately doubled by the extra £1·15 million made available following the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 6th May. We are awaiting the committee's report.—[Vol. 873, c. 14.]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his statement, but how does it fit in with the commission on teachers' salaries set up by the Secretary of State? Will Scots be represented on it, and will it report to the Secretary of State or to the STSC? I am pleased about the designation scheme, because it is important that teachers should know at the earliest possible date the figure which will be allocated to it for next Session so that they can decide on their education authority employment in the coming Session.

The pay increase which operated from 1st April is not affected by the review body's recommendations. When the results are reported, the Government will honour their commitment that the increases so awarded will be backdated to the date of the announcement—24th May. There will be Scots on the body, and I understand that an announcement of its membership will be made today.

It is important to obtain the details of the designation scheme as soon as possible, although that matter is not entirely in our hands. However, I shall do all I can to ensure that the report is not delayed.

Surely my hon. Friend should make the point that many of the problems arise from the delay caused by the Conservative Government and their incomes policy on teachers' salaries. Will the new scales in the designation scheme be known within the next two weeks, in the next month, or after the review date?

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that many of the difficulties which we face in teaching, in the National Health Service, and in many other respects, arise from the Conservative Government's statutory incomes policy, but I ask him not to confuse the report of the review body, which is considering the question of teachers' pay and conditions, with the working party of the Scottish Teachers Salaries Committee on designation. Those matters are not related.

I cannot say when the committee will report, but, as the new designation scales will have to operate from 1st August, the sooner the committee can produce the report the better for all concerned, so that local authorities can make their plans for the next session.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will call for reports from chief constables of police on the methods which they employ at identification parades: and if he will make a statement.

No. Chief constables comply with a standard procedure of conducting identification parades which is approved by the Crown authorities.

Is my hon. Friend aware that at an identification parade in Airdrie a photograph of a suspect was shown to one of the witnesses prior to the parade, that afterwards a man was selected from the parade and was jailed at a sheriff court, and that his sentence was quashed within a matter of moments in the High Court? Does my hon. Friend realise that this matter has caused certain public misgiving? In the interests of public co-operation with the police, is it not time that the techniques were reviewed?

My hon. Friend must be referring to the Boyle case. The complaints made in that case were later unreservedly withdrawn by the solicitors for Mr. Boyle. On the general question, the matter is under review by the Thomson Committee.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that identification procedures in courts are just as inaccurate as those at identification parades and that an alarming number of solicitors and advocates are identified in court instead of the clients whom they represent? Does the hon. Gentleman understand that this is causing increasing alarm to the legal profession? Will he inquire into this as well?

In some cases, I think that kind of mistake is quite understandable. However, I believe that that matter is also under consideration by the Thomson Committee. If it is not, I shall see that it is considered because it is obviously a very worrying problem.

asked the Lord Advocate how many public interviews, on matters for which they are responsible, have been given to the Press by Scottish Law Officers.

One such interview was given by the Solicitor-General and some of his remarks were published in the Daily Record of 23rd April. No such interviews have been given by me.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the Solicitor-General and the Daily Record should be congratulated on a first-class interview and a first-class article? Many people who read the article were deeply impressed by the Solicitor-General's fair highlighting of the strengths and weaknesses of Scottish law. As a token of open government, will my right hon. and learned Friend encourage this type of interview and this type of public discussion of a very important subject in Scotland?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said. The Solicitor-General for Scotland is present and he will also have heard it. No doubt the Thomson Committee on Criminal Procedure will make recommendations on this matter. There is a limit to what can be done without legislation, but I think that something can be done by means of a positive dialogue with the legal profession and with the courts, and I have initiated such a dialogue.

asked the Lord Advocate if he will recruit more legal staff for the Scottish Law Commission to allow it to make progress with its programme to reform the law of bankruptcy and to make progress with the third programme of law reform.

It is clear that the level of staffing of the Scottish Law Commission must be kept under regular review. To this end it has been agreed that a staff inspection be carried out and work on this has already begun. It would be premature to say what changes may result from that exercise.

May I express my gratitude to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his interest in this question and for arranging for a review of staffing? Many people in Scotland feel that there are weaknesses in the law of Scotland which should be reviewed and, although we are conscious of the strengths of the legal system, any help which can be given to the Law Commission to proceed with its work should be given.

I have no doubt that what the hon. Gentleman has said will be noted by members of the Scottish Law Commission and they will be glad to hear it. One of the more progressive moves of the last Labour Government was to set up the commission.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that one of the most pressing reforms of the law of Scotland is reform of the divorce law, which is often pressed by the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton)? Will he find time for such reform?

I cannot give an undertaking that in the present Session time will be found for legislation of that kind, but I have noted what the right hon. Gentleman has said. Many other people have made similar comments.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that my Bill would have had a Second Reading last Friday had not the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) made his first and last appearance at five minutes to 4 o'clock and called out "Object" at 4 o'clock?

My hon. Friend and I were two of the people who noted that.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept the urgency of reforming the law of bankruptcy, especially in view of the economic policies which the Government are pursuing?

I take this question seriously. The Conservative Party is obviously bankrupt of ideas, but no doubt the hon. Gentleman is aware of the discussions on reform of the law of bankruptcy in Scotland. The matter is under serious consideration. There are also discussions concerned with the international aspects of bankruptcy. I am glad to tell the hon. Gentleman that recently I have had discussions with a view to identifying and increasing the participation of the Scottish legal profession in the discussions.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you are aware, the United Nations Law of the Sea Conference opens in Caracas tomorrow. This is a matter of considerable importance to the fishing industry not only in Scotland but throughout the United Kingdom. So far, the House has had no indication of what is to be Her Majesty's Government's policy at this conference. Since there is no statement to be made by a member of the Government, so far as I know, may I draw your attention to Written Question No. 17, which has appeared on the Order Paper for the first time today? Can you let the House know whether you have had a request from the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs indicating that he is prepared to answer this Question in the House today? It is concerned with a matter of great importance not only to the House but to our fishing industry as well.

My answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's point of order is "Not a matter for me". The answer to the second part is "No".

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The clause ensures that in future trade unions entered in the list proposed under the Trade Union and Labour Relations Bill 1974, which is at present in progress through Parliament, will be entitled to provident benefit income exemption under Section 338 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970, Appendix A. In addition, it restores the relief with retrospective effect to trade unions which deregistered under the Industrial Relations Act 1971 and to new unions and newly amalgamated unions formed after 30th September 1971 which did not register under that Act. It also protects the position of those unions after 30th September 1971 which ceased to exist because of an amalgamation and will not, therefore, be listed in future.

In total, its effect is that, whatever action they took under the Industrial Relations Act 1971, trade unions will continue to enjoy the exemption under Section 338 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970 without a break.

I think the Committee knows that this clause is generally known as the Carr clause, after the right hon. Member for Carshalton (Mr. Carr), because it seeks to achieve an objective to which the right hon. Gentleman repeatedly pledged himself and the Government of which he was then a member; that is, to ensure that the provident funds of a trade union were not taxed as a result of the Industrial Relations Act.

Perhaps I may quote what the right hon. Gentleman told the House. He said:

"The assurance which I give, and which I stand by, is that it should be possible for a union which decides not to register under the new scheme of registration to take measures without insuperable difficulty to enable it both to protect its present provident funds and continue its provident fund activities."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th August 1971; Vol. 822, c. 1714.]

As late as 9th May of this year, after the last General Election, the right hon. Gentleman told us again that it was not the Conservative Government's intention that the provident funds of a union should be taxed as a result of the Industrial Relations Act.

I think the whole Committee and the country will agree that it would be scandalous if that had been the Conservative Government's intention, because the purpose of provident funds is to provide benefits to a member during sickness or compensation for personal injury while out of work, to a member by way of superannuation, to a member who has met with an accident, to a member who has lost his tools by fire or theft, for funeral expenses on the death of a member or his wife, and for provision for the children of a deceased member. I am quoting Section 338 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970, but those words have been on the statute book since 1893. Indeed, the provisions for relieving from income tax the provident funds of a trade union have been a fundamental part of our social system and tax machinery for over 80 years.

Yet, in fact, though we gather not in intention, the Industrial Relations Act robbed trade unions of this fundamental right—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO."]—if they chose to exercise another right which was totally legal; namely, not to register under the Act. That has made them liable in the last two years to pay as much as £10 million in additional taxation.

They did not have to.

I am coming to that.

The last Government claimed that the unions which chose not to register under the Act could nevertheless retain tax relief by registering their provident funds under some other Act. But I am afraid that Ministers in the last Government were in a continuous muddle here. They kept making unequivocal assertions which they were later compelled either to withdraw or to revise.

On 23rd March 1971 the right hon. Member for Carshalton told us confidently—I remember the ring of confidence as he spoke these words—

"I am assured on technical advice that the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965 or the Friendly Societies Act 1896 is available for registering for the provident funds of unions which do not wish to register under the Bill in the industrial relations sense."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd March 1971; Vol. 814, c. 335.]

But three months later he withdrew that assertion. He had to come to the House in a white sheet and accept, on 4th August 1971, that, as a result of further investigation, he had come to the conclusion that the Industrial and Provident Societies Act was not helpful in that respect. He continued to maintain that the Friendly Societies Act was helpful, but he proved to be as wrong about that Act as about the other.

It is true, as he had said in May, that there was no legal impediment to unions which wished to do so protecting their funds by hiving them off and registering as friendly societies. There are, of course, no legal difficulties in the way of the right hon. Gentleman living on the moon—

And a good idea, too.

or becoming Prime Minister, but in practice the difficulties in both cases are formidable.

The Trade Union Congress General Council took legal advice as soon as this issue came up. In May 1971, on the basis of counsel's opinion, it was obliged to tell its members that the new friendly society proposed would have to be completely separate from the union and controlled separately. There would have to be a separate accounting system for the calculation of contributions. Unless every existing member and beneficiary agreed to the transfer of his accrued rights to the new society, the union would still have a commitment to provide the benefits to them, as their accrued rights would have to be assured.

Any payment of union funds into the friendly society for the purpose of providing or supplementing benefits, as can happen between union funds when the provident fund is not actuarially based, would be irrevocable. Of course it is true that some unions have operated their provident fund activities through friendly societies from the outset, but that is quite a different matter from trying to unscramble the funds of an existing union and creating a separate body with an entirely new membership.

The counsel's opinion showed that the obstacles in practice were insuperable, because a friendly society could not be formed simply by transferring the provident funds of the union into a separate fund. The friendly society must be formed by the union members and not by the union. While donations from a union's general fund might be added to members' subscriptions, it would not be possible to finance a friendly society through such donations alone. Nor would it be possible to make subscriptions to a friendly society a condition of membership of a union.

Indeed, counsel held that the Registrar of Friendly Societies would not only require formal separation of the friendly society from the union but would be unlikely to accept any degree of overt control through overlapping membership of the governing body and the executive committee of the union.

4.15 p.m.

The last Government knew perfectly well that this was the case. The point was repeatedly raised here and in another place during the passage of the Industrial Relations Act.

The right hon. Gentleman is, of course, entitled to state his opinion. He is not entitled to say that the last Government knew perfectly well that that was not the case. He has quoted one counsel's opinion. We took our legal advice through the proper channels, and it happened to be different from that. It is not unusual, perhaps, for counsel to differ, but, according to the advice given to us in a proper constitutional way, we knew—insofar as it is possible to "know" in this sense—the opposite of what the right hon. Gentleman is saying.

I shall shortly disprove the assertion that the right hon. Gentleman has just made. Perhaps it is convenient that he has made it so that I may be able to disprove it.

Lord Diamond raised the difficulties in detail in a debate in another place on 25th May 1971. He was told by Lord Drumalbyn that the interpretation that I have just quoted of the situation was correct.

The practical impossibility of the friendly society solution was raised continually in the House on later Finance Bills. On 27th June 1972, in Standing Committee E, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Walden) referred to the fact that his own union had considered the idea of forming a friendly society but had found it practically impossible.

A year later—this is the answer to the right hon. Gentleman—the Government finally conceded the point. The then Minister of State, Treasury, the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) said:

"I realise that there are practical difficulties in some cases in that for these purposes provident funds have to be alienated from the main union funds…I am therefore aware that what I am now suggesting "—

the right hon. Gentleman's solution—

"cannot apply or appears not to apply in every case."—[OFFFICAL. REPORT, 10th July 1973; Vol. 859, c. 1425.]

Nevertheless, the Government took no action to relieve the unions of tax penalties which they claimed they had never intended in practice.

They failed to fulfil the undertaking given by the right hon. Gentleman on 4th August 1971 that they would set up a special register for trade uinons which did not wish to register under the Industrial Relations Act, so that they could continue to receive tax relief on their provident fund activities if that proved necessary. They failed to meet repeated requests by the TUC that the six-month waiver of the rules in the Industrial Relations Act which was conceded at the beginning of its operation should be continued indefinitely.

The issue was raised yet again by the TUC directly with my predecessor, the then Chancellor, in a meeting at the Treasury on Tuesday 5th February, two days before the General Election was announced. Having heard yet again that it was not possible for trade unions to separate their provident fund activities for tax purposes, the then Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber), according to the TUC minutes of the meeting, said that he

"…realised that the whole issue was one of great importance to trade unions and he would endeavour to find a solution to the problem despite the difficulties which had been discussed."

The Committee must presume that it was only the intervention of the election which prevented the Conservative Government from carrying out that pledge.

It has been left to the Labour Government to carry out a promise made by the Conservative Party on this matter, as, for example, on reducing the price of milk at a stroke. I would have expected that when we announced our intention to do this, the Conservative Party would have welcomed this solution and this fulfilment of a pledge to which they had committed themselves in such detail over so many years.

Our decision was welcomed, albeit reluctantly, by the arch-priest of the establishment—not a conspicuous ally of either the trade union movement or the Labour Party—Mr. William Rees-Mogg. In The Times on 24th April this year he said—this in many ways is the nub of my argument—in his leading article:

"It must anyway be regarded as improper to use the beneficiaries of a charitable fund as pawns in the business of influencing a trade union's leadership to adopt one rather than another of two equally lawful courses concerning something else altogether."

He went on to say:

"The tax position of funds which deserve to be considered as having charitable status should be determined by principles general to the taxation of charities, not consequently on decisions of a completely different kind."

He also went on to say—and here I feel that he showed less foresight as a prophet and wisdom as a commentator:

"Conservative MPs are likely to see the force of this, and it is indeed probable that if the Conservatives had remained in office to renegotiate ' the Industrial Relations Act, this is one of the things that would have been changed."

Mr. Rees-Mogg must have been as shocked and surprised as I was that the Conservative Opposition have chosen instead to attack this decision, and in attacking it they have used arguments totally incompatible with the position that they took when in office and, furthermore, highly offensive to the whole trade union movement.

The right hon. Member for Carshalton on 9th May this year, had the insolence to say in this Chamber:

"The unions paid that tax when, in my view, they need not have done so, had they not been careless for political reasons of their trustee guardianship of their members' funds."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th May 1974; Vol. 873, c. 624.]

"Careless for political reasons of their members' interests"—those were the right hon. Gentleman's words. He went on to say that he would develop that charge in due course. All of us on the Government side of the Committee will be fascinated to hear him develop it.

Others of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues have gone rather further. They have even asserted that unions which chose not to register under the Industrial Relations Act were seeking to act above the law—an assertion which they must have known to be false. The right hon. and learned Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Thomas), speaking at Llandrindod Wells on Saturday 27th April 1974, said of the clause that we are now debating:

"It was a special reward to the unions for deciding that they were above the law for refusing to take part in the Industrial Relations Act."

That is what he said, and he is a man not without influence, we are told, in the Conservative Party.

Now we come to the Brutus of the Opposition Front Bench, the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw). It was he who struck the final blow. He said in a speech to the Primrose League on Wednesday 24th April—perhaps it was an election speech for all I know—

"The object of the largesse"—

the fulfilment of the previous Government's pledges—

"is to relieve the Government supporters of the consequences of their own decision not to accept legislation lawfully passed by the previous Parliament."

Does the right hon. Gentleman really claim that in deciding not to register under the Industrial Relations Act trade unions were acting illegally? That is an astonishing doctrine and is totally contrary to everything that right hon. Gentlemen opposite told us during the months and, indeed, years in which we debated this matter. Right hon. Members of the Opposition Front Bench have gone a very long way from all that they previously said when they were Ministers—that there was no intention to use the provisions of the Industrial Relations Act to prevent the unions from receiving tax relief on their provident funds.

I think that not only the Committee but the country must ask themselves why members of the Conservative Party have chosen this particular moment, when according to the newspapers there may be some prospect of an early General Election, to widen the gulf between themselves and the organised workers of this country by adopting a posture of arrogant hostility towards the trade union movement far more offensive than they assumed at any time during the worst period of confrontation when they were in office.

There has been some speculation in recent weeks about a possible change in the attitude of the Opposition towards the trade unions and industrial policy. Until now most of us assumed that the change would be designed to soften some of the asperities of the past. But instead we now see that if by some mischance they ever found themselves in office again, they would embark at once on a campaign of unrestrained aggression which could lead to us looking back on the two months of three-day working this year as an unexampled period of industrial peace.

The right hon. Gentleman is trying to whip it up now.

The right hon. Gentleman has a charm which overcomes us all. We put down the new clause. The Opposition have chosen to debate it for a whole day on the Floor of the House, and they complain when we comment on the arguments they have used.

I suppose that the remarks that the right hon. Gentleman has just made are designed to keep peace in industry.